Last updated 09/07/24: Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website: https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 20 April 2017
Private property of enemies lost its absolute inviolability when at the end of World War I it was subjected to the claims of Allied nationals against Germany. After World War II enemy exterior assets became the object of reparations at the Potsdam Conference between the Governments of the United States, the Union of Soviet Socialist Eepublics, and the United Kingdom. To implement the Potsdam Agreement the Allied Control Council for Germany on October 30, 1945, enacted Law No. 5 which, inter alia, purported to vest in the Council title to German private assets in the neutral countries. In Switzerland this action eventually culminated in the Swiss-Allied Accord of May 25,1946, between France, the United Kingdom, the United States, and Switzerland, which provided for the liquidation of German property in Switzerland4 valued at approximately 150 million dollars. The proceeds of liquidation are to go fifty percent to Switzerland and fifty percent to the several governments signatory to the Paris Reparations Agreement of December 21, 1945.
Ed. note: The Joint Commission has not been in regular session since 1949, due to disagreement among the signatory governments as to substantive provisions of the Accord, which are the subject of diplomatic conversations now in progress.
1 S. J. Rubin, “Inviolability of Enemy Private Property,” 11 Law and Contemporary Problems (1945), pp. 166–182.
2 “Tripartite Conference at Berlin,” Department of State Bulletin, Aug. 5, 1945, p. 157; John B. Howard, “The Paris Agreement on Reparation from Germany,” ibid., June 16, 1946, p. 1023.
3 S. J. Rubin, “Allied-Swedish Accord on German External Assets, Looted Gold and Related Matters,” ibid., July 27, 1947, pp. 155, 156.
4 “Disposition of German Assets in Switzerland,” ibid., June 30, 1946, p. 1101. The full agreement appears at p. 1121 et seq.
5 Hudson, International Tribunals (1944), pp. 81, 82.
6 Seagle, The History of Law (1946), pp. 358, 360, 364, 368.
7 Percy Don Williams, “Fifty Years of the Chamizal Controversy—A Note on International Arbitral Appeals,” 25 Texas Law Review (1947), p. 470.
8 Williams, loc. cit., pp. 465, 467.
9 Id., p. 464.
10 Tripartite Conference at Berlin between representatives of the United States, Great Britain, and Russia, Art. IV. Department of State Bulletin, Aug. 5, 1945, p. 157; this Journal, Supp., Vol. 39 (1945), p. 251.
11 The Distribution of Reparations from Germany (Department of State Publication No. 2584, European Series 12), p. 1; this Journal, Supp., Vol. 40 (1946), p. 117. Representatives of the following countries participated in this conference: Albania, Australia, Belgium, Canada, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Egypt, France, Greece, India, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, the Union of South Africa, the United States, the United Kingdom and Yugoslavia. By protocol of March 15, 1948, Pakistan was deemed to be a signatory government. Report of the Secretariat General of the Inter-Allied Reparation Agency for 1948, p. 21.
12 Department of State Bulletin, June 30, 1946, p. 1121 et seq.
13 Recueil des Lois fédérales, Berne, Feb. 16, 1945. The decree of Feb. 16, 1945, was amended by Swiss Federal Council Decrees of April 27, 1945, July 3, 1945, Nov. 30, 1945 (two decrees), Feb. 26, 1946 (two decrees), April 1, 1947 (two decrees), April 29, 1947, and Feb. 11, 1948.
14 Accord, Art. I, cited supra, note 12.
15 Department of State Bulletin, June 30, 1946, p. 1101; Message of Swiss Federal Council to the Swiss Federal Assembly, June 14, 1946. Feuille Fédérale, Berne, Annex No. 5047.
16 Accord, opening paragraph, loc. cit.
17 Note 94, infra.
18 Cf. Hudson, op. cit., p. 218.
19 Accord Annex, Arts. I, II, loc. cit.
20 Annex, Art. II, par. B; Accord, Art. I, par. 4, loc. cit.
21 As to joint commissions generally, see 2 Hyde, International Law Chiefly as Interpreted and Applied by the United States (2nd rev. ed., 1947), p. 1644 et seq.; Ralston, Law and Procedure of International Tribunals (rev. ed., 1926), p. 33 et seq.
22 Ralston, op. cit., pp. 5, 6, 43, 44.
23 Note 20 supra.
24 Wigmore, Guide to American International Law and Practice (1943), p. 280.
25 Annex, Art. II, par. B, loc. cit.
26 Ralston, op. cit., pp. 109, 110.
27 See Hudson, International Tribunals, pp. 19, 20, expressing the view that members of joint commissions are subject to the control of the appointing state.
28 “The commissioners should consider themselves not the attorneys for either the one or the other country but the judges appointed for the purpose of deciding the question submitted to them, impartially, according to law and justice, and without reference to which side their decision will affect favorably or unfavorably.” The Good return and The Medea, United States and Ecuador (1865). Moore, History and Digest of International Arbitrations to which the United States has been a Party (1898), pp. 2733, 2734 (cited herein as Moore’s Arbitrations).
29 Cf. Feller, The Mexican Claims Commission (1935), pp. 40, 41.
30 Hudson, op. cit., p. 67.
31 Opinion dealing with Germany’s Obligations, etc. (1924), this Journal, Vol. 19 (1925), pp. 612, 614.
32 Hudson, op. cit., pp. 127, 131.
33 Ralston, op. cit., p. 44; 1936 Supp., p. 29; 2 Hyde, op. cit., p. 1627.
34 Hudson, op. cit., p. 71.
35 Cf. Award of arbitrator, Chilean-Peruvian Accounts (1875), Moore’s Arbitrations, p. ‘2102.
36 4 Hackworth, Digest of International Law (1942), p. 58.
37 Wigmore, op. cit., pp. 276, 277.
38 Annex, I, B, loc. cit.
39 Annex, II, E, loc. cit. In practice it is usually the individual members of the Commission who report property believed to be German to the Swiss Compensation Office through the Secretariat of the Commission.
40 Annex, II, D, loc. cit. As in the case of property believed to be German (note 39 supra), it is usually the individual members of the Commission who submit information and documentary evidence to the Swiss Compensation Office through the Secretariat of the Commission.
41 Annex, II, D, loc. cit.
42 Note 66 infra.
43 Annex, II, F, loc. cit. This includes general matters concerning the sale or transfer of German-owned trademarks and copyrights mentioned in Annex, VI, B.
44 Annex II, D, loc. cit.
45 Cf Ralston, op. cit., 1936 Supp., p. 52.
46 Hyde, op. cit., p. 1645.
47 Annex, Art. I, A, e; Art. II, E, F; Art. III, loc. cit.
48 Cf. Moore, 1 International Adjudications (Modern Series, 1929), p. xxxvi et seq.
49 6 Hackworth, op. cit., p. 89.
50 Hudson, op. cit., p. 99 et seq.; Ralston, op. cit., pp. 53, 54; Hackworth, op. cit., p. 118 et seq.
51 Eldredge case, U. S.-Peruvian Mixed Commission. Moore’s Arbitrations, p. 3462.
52 Ralston, op. cit., p. 53 et seq.; 1936 Supp., pp. 31–33. “Equity may be said to form a part of international law, serving to temper the application of strict rules, to prevent injustice in particular cases, and to furnish a basis for extension where lines have been forged by experience. Hence, a tribunal may include principles of equity in the law which it applies, even in the absence of an express mandate.” Hudson, op. cit., p. 103.
53 Ralston, op. cit., p. 123 et seq.
54 Hudson, The Permanent Court of International Justice (1920–1942), p. 627.
55 Ibid., p. 628.
56 Ralston, op. cit., pp. 99, 100, citing the Umpire of the German-Venezuelan Commission in the Brewer, Moller & Co. case.
57 Cook’s case, British-American Commission of 1853. Moore, Arbitrations, pp. 2313, 2315.
58 Case of the German Settlers in Poland. Fachiri, Permanent Court of International Justice (1925), p. 186 et seq.
59 6 Hackworth, op. cit., p. 118.
60 Ralston, op. cit., p. 98 et seq.; 1936 Supp., p. 48 et seq.; The Montijo (1875), United States and Colombia, Moore’s Arbitrations, p. 1440.
61 Quoted in Ralston, op. cit., 1936 Supp., p. 48.
62 Hudson, op. cit., p. 103.
63 Shufeldt v. Guatemala (1930), this Journal, Vol. 24 (1930), pp. 799, 817. Such authority also seems implied from Art. I, par. B, of the Annex which requires the annulment of transactions of a cloaking nature by which German property was concealed. Also see Domke, The Control of Alien Property (1947), p. 111.
64 In the matter of The Argonaut and Colonel Jonas H. French, this Journal, Vol. 16 (1922), pp. 106, 109; 6 Hackworth, op. cit., p. 121.
65 Ralston, op. cit., p. 115.
66 Ibid., p. 197.
67 Ibid., p. 204.
68 Cf. Feller, op. cit., pp. 228, 229.
69 Note 103 infra.
70 The Annex requires the Compensation Office to consult the Joint Commission before making “important decisions.” Annex, Art. II, D, loo. cit.
71 The uncovering of cloaked German property by the Compensation Office is to be done with the assistance of the Commission. Annex, Art. I, B, loc. cit.
72 Cf. Feller, op. cit., p. 284.
73 Ibid., p. 253; Sandifer, Evidence before International Tribunals (1939), pp. 206, 207.
74 Sandifer, op. cit., pp. 233, 234.
75 Ibid., p. 28.
76 Annex, Art. III, loc. cit.
77 Annex, Art. II, D, loc. cit.
78 Cf. Feller, op. cit., p. 260 et seq.
79 Sandifer, op. cit., pp. 10–14.
80 Notes 24 and 25 supra.
81 Annex, Art. III, par. 1, loc. cit.
82 Cf. Ralston, op. cit., p. 48 et seq.; 1936 Supp., pp. 29, 30; 7 Moore, International Law Digest (1906), p. 55 et seq.
83 1 Moore, International Adjudications (Modern Series, 1929), p. xx.
84 Ralston, op. cit., p. 107 et seq.
85 Ralston, op. cit., p. 207; Sandifer, op. cit., pp. 284–286.
86 Ralston, op. cit., 1936 Supp., p. 91.
87 Sandifer, op. cit., p. 299.
88 Ibid., p. 312.
89 ibid., p. 321.
90 Cf. ibid., pp. 321, 324.
91 Ibid., p. 283.
92 Annex, Art. II, D, loc. cit.
93 Accord, Art. I, par. 4; Annex, Art. II, B, loc. cit.
94 Uncovering of cloaking transactions (Annex, I, B), making of important decisions by the Compensation Office (Annex, Art. II, D), investigation of property believed to be German (Annex, Art. II, E), settlement of terms of sale of German property (Annex, Art. II, F).
95 Annex, Art. III, par. 1, loc. cit.
96 Ibid.
97 Ibid.
98 Moore, International Adjudications (Modern Series, 1929), p. xxxvii et seq.
99 Cf. Hudson, International Tribunals, p. 127.
100 See p. 480 infra.
101 Annex, Art. I, A, e, loc. tit.
102 Annex, Art. VI, B, loc. cit.
103 Annex, Art. III, par. 1, loc. cit.
104 Notes 70, 71 supra.
105 Note 82 supra.
106 Annex, Art. II, par. D, loc. cit.
107 Black Tom and Kingsland cases, U. S.-German Mixed Claims Commission of 1922, opinion of Dec. 15, 1933 (cited in Sandifer, op. cit., p. 289). In this case the Umpire held that the Commission had no power to enter an order for the final closing of the record in any case, because the arbitral agreement provided that: “The Commission shall receive and consider all written statements or documents which may be presented to it by or on behalf of the respective governments in support of, or in answer to, any claim.” “Therefore,” said the Umpire, “the American agent was under no obligation to close his record, and submit his case at The Hague, if he knew, or had reason to expect, that further evidence was obtainable.”
108 Note 84 supra.
109 Hudson, op. cit., p. 114; Ralston, op. cit., pp. 109, 110; Hyde, op. cit., p. 1628.
110 Annex, Art. III, par. 1, loc. cit.
111 Note 50 supra.
112 Wigmore, op. cit., p. 280.
113 Annex, Art. III, par. 2, loc. cit.
114 Note 84 supra.
115 Note 109 supra.
116 Hudson, op. cit., p. 81.
117 Art. III, par. 3, loc. cit.; but see p. 482, infra.
118 “In connection with international arbitration the word compromis, derived from the civil law relating to private arbitration, has come into vogue to designate the form of treaty which refers a given subject matter of dispute to arbitrators, either specifically designated or where designation is arranged for, describes and limits the powers of the arbitrators, and usually in substance the general tenor of their possible sentences for carrying them out. The purpose of a compromis may also be attained by an exchange of notes, the most informal of all international arrangements.” Ralston, op. cit., p. 5.
119 Cf. Robert E. Wilson, “Clauses Relating to Reference of Disputes in Obligatory Arbitration Treaties,” this Journal, Vol. 25 (1931), p. 469 et seq.
120 Cf. Hyde, op. cit., p. 1585, note 9.
121 Ibid., pp. 1598–1605; Hackworth, op. cit., pp. 63–66.
122 Hackworth, op. cit., pp. 76, 78.
123 Hudson, International Tribunals, p. 75.
124 Ibid., p. 69.
125 Cf. James Wilford Garner, “Appeal in Case of Alleged Invalid Arbitral Awards,” this Journal, Vol. 26 (1932), pp. 126, 131.
126 “Decisions of international tribunals have seldom been subject to reconsideration on appeal by other tribunals.” Hudson, op. cit., p. 126.
127 Hudson, op. cit., pp. 121, 124; Hyde, op. cit., pp. 1633, 1634.
128 In the Chamizal case between the United States and Mexico the agreement for submission provided that the award should be “final and conclusive upon both Governments and without appeal.” (Convention of June 24, 1910, U. S.-Mexico, Art. 3, 36 Stat. 2481.) The United States refused to accept the award as binding (1 Hackworth, op. cit., pp. 416, 417).
129 Hackworth, op. cit., p. 125 et seq.; Hyde, op. cit., p. 1636 et seq. See authorities cited by Garner, loc. cit.
130 Ernst Sehneeberger, “Reciprocity as a Maxim of International law,” Georgetown Law Journal, November, 1948, p. 31.
